O'Malley's victory by the numbers
With most precincts reporting, there's some pretty interesting trends in the 2010 gubernatorial election results.
It it tempting to look at Gov. Martin O'Malley's double digit lead over challenger former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich as a sweeping mandate for the incumbent's policies. But figures from the Board of Elections show the voters more likely soured on Ehrlich.
O'Malley picked up 25,000 more votes this year than four years ago, not bad in a year where voters were supposed to be angry at Democrats and incumbents. But Ehrlich's numbers are starker: He appears to have turned off 92,000 who supported him in 2006 (the number could change slightly as more precincts report). Turnout was down with 67,000 fewer people casting ballots.
Looking quickly at county by county results it's clear where O'Malley picked up his support: He earned 27,000 more votes in Prince George's County than last time. Ehrlich, on the other hand, lost big in the DC suburbs. He had 30,000 fewer votes in Montgomery County this year and and 18,000 fewer votes in Prince Georges.
Interestingly both men had fewer votes in Baltimore County this year compared with 2006. Ehrlich came in with 11,000 fewer; O'Malley with 3,500 fewer votes there.








Comments
Is it really any wonder O'Malley won? All he did was hammer the airwaves w/ negative ads, which as usual, the sheep being lead to slaughter in Maryand bought. Wait til you see his surprise in January w/ taxes. Can't wait, but hey, anyone in Maryland who voted for him has no reason to complain these next 4 years, what you get is what you voted for. Enjoy it!
Posted by: Jeff | November 3, 2010 9:57 AM
Martin wins and sanity prevails.
Posted by: Ray Barcia | November 3, 2010 10:00 AM
Owe'Mally had the cash to bring it home and this state is far too blue for any real debate to occur in government. When will democrats realize that when they elect supermajorities only the top two democrats get their voices heard and they play one against the other. If this state had a 60% to 40% government - which it would if it wasn't gerrymandered then debate would occur and the younger stars of their own party would be heard too. It is just said that we foster and vote for such corruption. WAKE UP!
Posted by: Chuck | November 3, 2010 11:09 AM
Hello Jeff---
You must have missed the thousands of negative ads that Ehrlich aimed at O'Malley, claiming that the Governor raised our taxes, drove out businesses and took the state of Maryland backwards.
Posted by: kim | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM
Ahhhh....time to gloat! Time to take off all those 4+ year old Ehrlich bumper stickers folks. AND time for that guy who hauls around that Ehrlich LED trailer to hang it up. Unless of course we're going to see Ehrlich run again in 2014...and 2018...an 2022... It's a prospect I'm sure most Democrats in Maryland would be very comfortable with after watching the way this campaign was run!
Posted by: Patapsco Jones | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM
Thanks again Maryland for reminding me why I moved to Pennsylvania. Annyone care to join me ???
Posted by: Alex | November 3, 2010 11:20 AM
I voted for neither as both are a path to nowhere. Is it really surprising that O'Malley won in a heavily democratic state against a candidate who didn't really say much of anything that would sway people from O'Malley? I didn't feel either was a legit choice so I voted that way.
Posted by: Ben | November 3, 2010 11:26 AM
Ray, I hope you say that when you are paying a 7% sales tax.
Posted by: Kevin | November 3, 2010 11:32 AM
Woohoo, looking forward to having MD move to #1 on the "Tax Hell" list!
Posted by: Archie | November 3, 2010 11:38 AM
Jeff,
What is the purpose of selecting out a meager handful of facts from the campaign season and recontextualizing them with your long standing political beliefs? Martin O'Malley did a great deal more than run negative advertising. Ehrlich, the RGA and independent groups ran as much if not more negative ads. Furthermore, Ehrlich declined to provide any kind of specific ideas about what he would do differently, aside from assuring the public he would cut education spending.
There isn't really any need to mis-characterize the election in such an egregious way. Unless that's what helps you get out of bed in the morning.
Posted by: mike | November 3, 2010 12:13 PM
This was the most lopsided governor's race since 1990 when Gov Schaeffer beat a relative unknown 60/40. Also, Gov O'Malley was the first Dem since Schaeffer to win Baltimore County. Perhaps instead of blaming Maryland, Ehrlich could use this as a moment ofpersonal reflection about the bitter, petty, small-minded battles he waged while in office and others could see that as an example of what not to do.
Posted by: Josh | November 3, 2010 12:53 PM
Way to represent Josh. You got your facts all wrong. Omalley did not win Baltimore County. Go to the board of elections website. Elrich won 20 counties and Omalley won 5. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?
Posted by: Kevin | November 3, 2010 1:20 PM
Kevin wrote: "Omalley did not win Baltimore County. Go to the board of elections website. Elrich won 20 counties and Omalley won 5. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?"
It is true that Ehrlich pulled out a pyrrhic victory in Baltimore County by winning a total of 132237 votes to Governor O'Malley's 132034 - a difference of a whopping 203 votes.
But does anyone who's not a sore loser or just mathematically challenged see something wrong with a picture where the Governor won by receiving 968,104 votes (55.77% of votes cast) in 4 counties and Baltimore City versus Ehrlich's 733,489 votes (42.25%) in the remaining 20 counties? No, nobody but a crybaby would see something wrong with someone who beat his opponent by over 13% in an election being called "the winner".
Posted by: Patapsco Jones | November 3, 2010 1:57 PM
O'Malley and Erlich are so similar it is scarey. Both were awful in their first term. Erlich just was worse. Trying to sell park land and making college tution go through the roof. And then bashing the state when he lost last time.
Posted by: atomic | November 3, 2010 2:11 PM
Kevin,
Interesting comment about counties won. I just looked at the elections website. Is there a way to see then in a list, or did u have to click on each one to see who won that county. Baltimore County is extremely close- and I'm not sure of early voting #'s are included in those figures.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2010 2:14 PM
Thanks Patapsco for again proving why I need to leave Maryland. I am a whiner because someone posted a non truth and I corrected it. But because it was close enough in votes, it had to be the truth. One day people in Maryland will realize that the city does not speak for the whole state. And a day will never happen that the people in the city will wake up and vote for a person not because of his party or skin color.
Posted by: Kevin | November 3, 2010 2:36 PM
One party town, One Party thinking. If the ruling elite would have worked with Ehrlich instead of blocking every attempt to move the state into fiscal responsiblity after Spendening and his typical democratic spend spend spend, the tides would have allowed 20 counties to overrule the 5 counties, but its too easy to give give give so you get votes from those on the public dole. OWE Malley is just a repeat of the same old same old.
Posted by: Ellen | November 3, 2010 2:50 PM
Anonymous,
If you click on detail, it will give you a break down of the county totals.
Posted by: Kevin | November 3, 2010 2:52 PM
Oh please. If Baltimore City ceased to exist, O'Malley still would have won. Discounting every single Baltimore City vote, O'Malley would have taken it 845,406 to 709,548.
Your argument is invalid.
Posted by: sean | November 3, 2010 3:00 PM
I have not been a resident of Maryland for long. I started out as a student and wound up staying to start life after college. I was very involved in the last state election. And race and party affiliation had nothing to do with my decision. Last election Erlich ran with a Black Attorney General, who happens to be the RNC President. I didn't vote for him because he did nothing to appeal to me or my concerns. Over the last 4 years O'Malley has done what appeals to those with sense: attempted to do what he could to fix education in the state, keep tuition costs down, and navigate a terrible economy. Yeah people lost their jobs.... But Trust it could have been so much worst. He stood by his campaign promises as had Obama. You may not agree but he has done most of what he promised and he still has 2 years left.
Posted by: MSU | November 3, 2010 3:13 PM
And it seems like you're forgetting this is a popular vote - one voter, one vote. There's no electoral college, so it doesn't really even matter that much how the counties break down.
Posted by: sean | November 3, 2010 3:14 PM
all i can say is i am so sorry that omalley won wait til january and 2011 lets pray we have more jobs.
Posted by: noreen | November 3, 2010 3:38 PM
Help! Help! Will someone please help me pull Martin O'Malley's foot out of Bob Big Business Ehrlichs rear end AGAIN. Why won't Ehrlich get the message. We are a Blue, Progressive, Educated, High Salaried state. We are not Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi or Texas type of state. We read and make the best choices. Martin is not perfect but he is much better than Ehrlich. We will not tolerate a guy that will raise property tax, car registration fees, toll road fees, side with big corporations against citizens of his state to represent us. The 1cent sales tax amounted to very little but it helped us stay financially solvent while other states were on hard times. Let this election be a less to all who want to elect incompetent people like Ehrlich. Maryland will not tolerate it. You can always move to the low education, low per capita, republican run states in the south. Sorry but the truth hurts.
Posted by: Baysox39 | November 3, 2010 4:25 PM
Actually Kevin you're a whiner because you cry about someone winning an election by 13+%, then act as though only the votes of those who agree with you are valid. Also your comments about party and/or skin color seem to flirt with what you're really getting at here. Why not just have whites vote, right? Then over a third of the state could be immorally and unconstitutionally disenfranchised, but your team could (maybe) win.
Also, thank to Ellen above for adding that interesting experiment in stream of consciousness political prose. I'm glad they're allowing Internet access at Sheppard Pratt these days.
Posted by: Patapsco Jones | November 3, 2010 4:25 PM
Help! Help! Will someone please help me pull Martin O'Malley's foot out of Bob Big Business Ehrlichs rear end AGAIN. Why won't Ehrlich get the message. We are a Blue, Progressive, Educated, High Salaried state. We are not Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi or Texas type of state. We read and make the best choices. Martin is not perfect but he is much better than Ehrlich. We will not tolerate a guy that will raise property tax, car registration fees, toll road fees, side with big corporations against citizens of his state to represent us. The 1cent sales tax amounted to very little but it helped us stay financially solvent while other states were on hard times. Let this election be a less to all who want to elect incompetent people like Ehrlich. Maryland will not tolerate it. You can always move to the low education, low per capita, republican run states in the south. Sorry but the truth hurts.
Posted by: Baysox39 | November 3, 2010 4:25 PM
I'll have to admit, Ehrlich ran a terrible campaign. However, in this single party state, how was it that Ehrlich raised every Marylander's taxes? Didn't the Democratically controlled legislature have any say in the matter?
I can't wait for another four years of a governor who talks to us like we are children. Maryland gets what it deserves, a nanny.
Posted by: Dirk Studwell | November 3, 2010 4:25 PM
Actually Kevin you're a whiner because you cry about someone winning an election by 13+%, then act as though only the votes of those who agree with you are valid. Also your comments about party and/or skin color seem to flirt with what you're really getting at here. Why not just have whites vote, right? Then over a third of the state could be immorally and unconstitutionally disenfranchised, but your team could (maybe) win.
Also, thank to Ellen above for adding that interesting experiment in stream of consciousness political prose. I'm glad they're allowing Internet access at Sheppard Pratt these days.
Posted by: Patapsco Jones | November 3, 2010 4:40 PM
Again Patapsco is calling someone a name. What are you 12? I know you think we HAVE to agree with you, we do not. So because we do not agree with you does not make us a whiner, a loser or a mental patient. Enjoy your crime in Patapsco. That you can not argue with. But you probably will.
Posted by: Kevin | November 4, 2010 8:14 AM
It's not your disagreement with me that makes you a whiner/crybaby, Kevin. It's your inability to comprehend simple math - again a 13+% victory - compounded with your purposefully-vague racist failure to recognize that all Marylanders have a right to vote for elected public officials that does the trick. Enjoy your divisive hypocrisy.
Posted by: Patapsco Jones | November 5, 2010 11:26 AM
5 days till payday, I have a jar of mayo, a slice of cheese and $3 in the bank..
love working for the state... wonder if the gov could loan me $5 for some gas to get to work???
p.s. we are not all overpaid!
Posted by: looking forafederaljob | November 6, 2010 11:34 AM
Governor O'Malley not only won by the numbers, he claimed a victory in class. Ehrlich did not call the governor to congratulate him on his victory, as is customary; he left a message at the governor's mansion instead. Ehrlich even cancelled the catering to his election night event. This combined with the recent robocall scandal Team Ehrlich admitted to: it is hard to see O'Malley's victory against anything more than a child.
Posted by: Brent Girard | November 7, 2010 2:54 PM